Sunday, March 14, 2010

Should Christians Support a Necessary Evil?

[CORRECTION within post, below.]

Kevin Clauson gave an interesting talk at the Austrian Scholars Conference concerning the apparent (but spurious in his mind) tension between evangelical political views and Austro-libertarianism. During the talk he described government as a "necessary evil" and cited Romans 13 to show that God had instituted civil authority, but that the sinful nature of men meant that government needed to be very limited.

Norman Horn in the Q&A raised a question along the lines of, "I happen to disagree with you that government is necessary, but let's put that aside. I'm interested in your acceptance of the very concept of a necessary evil."

Clauson reiterated his points about the sinful nature of man (making government necessary but at the same time very dangerous) and once again cited Romans 13. But then Norman explained that he wasn't challenging the existence of government, but rather the concept of a necessary evil. Then he said something like, "But earlier in the book of Romans he says, 'What shall we say then? Shall we do evil that God may work good from it? By no means!'"

[UPDATE: The following is wrong, I picked up the wrong passage when I tried to find what Norman was alluding to. Please read the comments to see a much better debate.] I think he was referring to Romans 6, and the translation here is not exactly how I remembered Norman making his point. In other words, the translation here (and the ones I'm used to) are not as clearly in conflict with someone who thinks there is such a thing as a necessary evil, i.e. that Christians could use an admittedly evil thing (the State) to effect a good outcome.

Anyway I am not sure myself how I feel about all this. According to my own arguments on this very blog, I think I would have to agree that the world itself is a necessary evil in God's plan.

Note that Norman could still argue that humans shouldn't use evil things as a way to effect good outcomes, even though God does that (e.g. Joseph's betrayal at the hands of his brothers). But I think Norman was trying to argue that the very notion of a necessary evil is nonsense.

From the title of the post, I thought you were going to take on something meaty, like a Christian reaction to war.

Instead it's a statement that government is "an admittedly evil thing," which Norman chose to set aside, but you seem to be accepting. Sorry if I'm reading you wrong.

Two points, if I'm reading you right.1) Aren't you trivializing what ought to be a meaningful philosophical question?2) If you really think government is evil, try living without one. Do you really believe anarchy is preferable? Clauson seems not to.

OK, Three.If the state is evil, because of the sinful nature of man, than so is everything else man can construct, including evangelical political views, and Austrian economics.

So, I really hope I have read you wrong.

More seriously, this line of thought illustrates a fundamental difference between conservative and progressive thought process.

Conservatives think man is evil. This is why war and torture can be tolerated: we humans deserve no better. How this squares with forgiveness and salvation is a bit of a mystery.

Progressives have a firm belief in fundamental human dignity, and that the actions of man can both improve the lot of man, and elevate him spiritually.

Darkness and negativity on the one hand, hope and progress on the other.

Government isn't an evil thing. A State is. Churches have church governments, but they aren't states. The problems in argumentation is people switch back and forth between them, saying the job of government must be done (true), so it must be done by a state (false). In the book of Judges Israel had government but no state. Government is necessary, but states are evil. In the New Testament, Paul urges the churches to be self governing and not go to the governors (state).

To say "the world is a necessary evil" seems misleading as God by definition does not need anything or anyone and certainly not evil to accomplish his plans! (Although he may use it as you rightly pointed out)

Paul's arguments are very easy to understand, wouldn't you be better off going to the most immature Christian among you for an decision to resolve a dispute than go to a Roman governor? James talks about how the nexus of power/wealth between the Roman/Hebrew state and the politically favored/connected (Goldman Sachs in the first century seems like the right image). Why would a Christian willingly go to such people for JUSTICE? He's more likely to be ripped off further and charged for the privilege.

Jazzbumpa, I think modern States are evil institutions (thanks Jim for making the clarification to avoid confusion). What do I mean by that? Well they necessarily rely on theft or threats of theft to even exist. (Gene I know you don't like that claim but I still think it's true in the way I use those terms.)

Also, Jazzbumpa, Clauson in the Q&A clarified that OK you could call the State a potential evil because it's run by sinful, fallen men (and women).

I think Mr. Horn was probably referring to Romans 3:7-8, which is typically cited for the view that "the ends don't justify the means," so to speak.

I also think, when people talk about a necessary evil, "evil" is being used to not to refer to something immoral but something undesirable or with undesirable features. When someone says, for example, that war is a necessary evil they aren't saying that war is immoral. Rather, they are acknowledging the carnage involved in war while asserting that war is necessary to avoid even more undesirable consequences. So interpreted, there's no contradiction between thinking that government is a necessary evil and believing that you shouldn't do evil that good may result.

Bob: To clarify, as best I can remember I said, "How can you justify necessary evil when earlier in Romans Paul criticizes people who would say, 'Shall we do evil that good may result?' This doesn't make sense to me."

I was trying to recall (but couldn't at the time) the words of Romans 3:5-8 (good call BlackAdder). For context sake, here's the full quote:"But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved."

Now, I would grant that given the context this is not a direct statement like "God said straight up that the ends don't justify the means." However, this is arguably a strong suggestion towards the same.

Bob, you are exactly right that Romans 6 further bolsters this interpretation -- not to mention the rest of the NT. :-)

I think the 1 Peter injunction "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" precludes the use of evil as a means to do "good." What baffles me about any Christian thinking that "necessary evil" exists is that despite the Christian injunctions against it there are also many secular philosophers throughout history that argue against it as well. Where did we seem to get this idea?

I believe that we have free will, and that the foreknowledge of God does not nullify the free will God freely gave us. Therefore, the world -- created as good -- is not a necessary evil but rather the necessary good flowing straight from God. That his creatures ate from the tree and thereby broke relationship with him is not a necessary evil either, but rather a human choice that we freely made.

But enough theologizing... Let me say in closing that Clausen is a fine fellow and I really do wish him well. I very much appreciated his presentation.

"Well they necessarily rely on theft or threats of theft to even exist."

OK, this is good, because now I've got the right context to make the problem I have here clear.

Now, I know you think scripture is divinely inspired, except for Romans 13, which Satan slipped in. But let's just say someone is Christian and doesn't know about that. Can you see why this argument (taxes are theft) is going to go nowhere with them? They're going to respond, "No, Bob, Romans 13 says God established government, and paying taxes is our obligation!"

Now, if that is true, and God has declared that we are obligated to pay taxes, then of course, collecting them is not theft in the least -- it is anyone who resists paying their taxes who is stealing! (Imagine, say, in front of both of us, God appears in a burning bush and announces, "Bob, you are obligated to support Gene from now on, because I am giving him an important prophetic mission to fulfill, and he needs your support." Neither of us has any doubts about the genuine nature of our vision. I think you'll have to agree that it would be wrong for you to not support me, right? Well someone who takes Romans 13 literally sees not paying taxes as the same sort of wrong.)

And the same argument goes through for anyone who thinks the State is justified for any other, say, Hobbesian, reasons.

That is why you can't do an end run around say, Hobbes' or Augustine's or Aquinas' argument for the existence of civil authority by claiming "taxes are theft" -- because if their arguments go through, then taxes aren't theft, but something citizens justly owe. You have to meet them head on on their own turf. If you win there, then your tax argument will further discredit an institution you have shown to be unnecessary. But it simply has no force against anyone arguing as, for instance, any of the three above argue.

Jim -I don't understand what you mean by State. The Israelite population of Judges has a government, but no State. What does that mean? Looks like there is a common understanding here that I don't get. Can someone help me?

Gene -Not a strawman. My interpretation of what I see. And it's Christians, not conservatives, who think man is fallen.

"By the way, the neoconservative are NOT conservative!"Point taken. I'm pretty sure Cheney is not a Christian.

"Darkness and negativity on the one hand, hope and progress on the other."

Realism on the one hand, childish fantasies on the other.

If I am to read you as harshly as you read me, then you are the conservative thinker who denies "these things." Childish fantasy, indeed!

Bob -By "theft" are you referring to taxation? I don't know what else it would be. But that's a mind set. Think of it as membership dues.

If the State is a potential evil, run by the fallen, then so is any human institution or activity.

Come on, Gene, you know that's not what I think. It's fine to make blog jokes about my weight or hairline, but is it necessary to use my religious views?

I understand what you are saying, but we are having the same argument. I think that most Americans (who are the target of my popular writings on government stuff) do not believe that the government (or US federal government to be more specific) owns their bodies, or that their locally elected officials own their land. And so I think there is a contradiction in their worldview.

You're right, I have a serious problem when I try to reconcile Romans 13 with my other views of what Jesus Himself taught, let alone what Rothbard said. But right-wingers don't think that George Bush was wrong to try to topple Saddam's regime since it was instituted by God (and only Iraqi criminals had something to fear from Saddam's death squads). Moreover, Paul himself spent a lot of time in prison, presumably not because he felt he was guilty of the particular crimes of which he was accused.

Gene: I agree that it is good to approach Hobbes and/or Aquinas head-on, and that it is a non-starter to just say "well, taxation is theft" and nothing more. Better to be more nuanced. But there is also more to the Scriptural argument than just to quote Romans 13 and say, "There, I've justified the state." There is no evidence from the Scripture that anything but LIBERTY is the default for anyone. A true biblical argument for the State has to answer the question of WHY liberty must be subverted by the State. I do not believe Romans 13 does this in the least.

BTW all, if we are to take Samuel's response to the Israelites who asked for a king in 1 Sam. 7 as a list of evil/non-desirable things that a king/government will do, that gives a fairly substantial suggestion that taxation is the equivalent to eminent domain and conscription...

Bob,The audio did not include the Q&A, which your post expanded on, but a very interesting talk nonetheless. The debate over Israel being the church or the literal nation-state of Israel is very relevant, given its impact on our foreign policy.

BTW, if you haven't already seen it, Greenwald wrote about the US-Israel relationship today.

be sure to check out the "render unto Caesar" paper from the same session.

Will do. I've got it downloaded and will listen to it in the car. Is this a Ned Netterville-type interpretation of Render Unto Caesar?

A government is a way of resolving disputes and maintaining order. A State claims to be serving the purpose of government while taking the claim of a monopoly in jurisdiction (it has final say in all disagreements, including those to which it is a party) and initiation of the use of force/abridge property rights/taxation. In effect, a State essentially claims primary property right on everything and everyone within its geographic territory (sphere of terror), with any prerogatives it leaves you are privileges it can revoke. I give money to a church, and submit to its governance, but I'm not paying taxes, and failure to donate doesn't forfeit my property or life, I have to actually willingly join. I could join a dispute resolution club and pay to them a membership fee periodically (superficially resembling taxes), but I wouldn't be FORCED to join one and if the terms became too onerous I could join a different one.

Even people of good will occasionally have disputes or disagreements which need resolution, so government is a necessary thing, not dependent on the fallen nature of man. It is therefore not an evil thing in and of itself.

A State, by claiming to be the primary owner of everything, is assuming the place of God. God will use States, just as He uses all stupid things we do for His glory, but that is different from the idea that I cheat on my wife so that when we reconcile we are closer than before (doing evil so that good may come).

Gene,You are right that many western states (that i can think of) do not explicitly or officially claim final ownership over all the property in their territory. However, If I decide i do not want to pay my taxes and the state finds out, i am penalized. If i continue to avoid paying the state they will threaten me with jail (or worse in some nations). Even if I stay on my own property, never using public goods or roads and stay self sufficient on a farm or something, I will still be threatened with going to prison or worse for not giving the state part of my property (money, etc.).

This is the contradiction i think Murphy and Jim are talking about. The State recognizes (as do most citezens) that your property is your own. You legitimately own it. yet at the same time, If you don't give part of that property to them, they reserve the right to take all of it, or fine you, or imprison/kill you (depending on the state). This is the behavior of someone who had their own property trespassed on, yet they do not claim to own the property.

either A) the state owns all the property in its territorial area and has the right to extract rents (taxes) from those on its property, orB) The state does not own all the property in the area it monopolizes and unjustly extracts rents (taxes) from people who are not trespassing on state land.

Think of it this way: If i own a house, and Bob and Gene are renting it, it would be ludicrous for them to expect to live there for free. I have the right to charge them rent and if they do not like the price, they can get out. many statists (i think) look at it this way. They tell me, "if you don't like it, then you can leave the country." While this is true, my argument to them is that the state is not like an owner of a house and i am the tenant. My arguement is that the state, much like a mafia or crime family, "protects" a neighborhood, but extracts the money from people under threat of violence on their own property. If the "mob family" or state or landlord is the just owner of the property, then this action of extraction if fine. But when the mob/state/landlord really doesn't own the property and still demands money, this is called theft.

This is why we ancaps call taxation theft; we believe that most governments illegitimately claim dominion over territory that they do not own, and that many of their subscribers/tax payers are having their property seized from them involuntarily (also known as theft). Theoretically (but not likely), you could have a person/company/group that owned a large portion of territory in the shape of the U.S. and they could be extracting rents/taxes on their property just like taxes now and that would be legitimate to us ancaps. the only difference is currently, the state does not own the property (in our eyes), and is taking the fruits of our labor unjustly.

I'm of the opinion that Romans 13 should be understood in light of Romans 12. Remember: Paul didn't write "Chapter 13" to indicate a break in the reasoning. He simply wrote - and Paul tended to write in a systematic, logical way. So, it's not misrepresenting anything to say that Paul wrote:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit themselves to the governing authorities..."

Reading it this way, it seems that Romans 13 is written to justify why Christians shouldn't be violent revolutionaries against a government that does evil. Though the government may be doing evil, its fundamental purpose is good.

The question Paul is answering isn't "Should we have a government?" but is "Should we revolt against the (evil?) government that already exists (through refusing to pay taxes, for example)?" His answer to the second question is "No", but it's not clear to me that he answers the first question at all - at least in this passage.

Also, this view is perfectly reconcilable with "taxes are theft", if we throw in other Scriptures. Just because something is theft doesn't mean that Christians should resist it. ("If someone takes from you...")

Obviously, this doesn't touch Augustine, Aquinas, or Hobbes. But, it does suggest, as Norman says, that Romans 13 isn't good enough if we want to justify the State.

I'm of the opinion that Romans 13 should be understood in light of Romans 12. Remember: Paul didn't write "Chapter 13" to indicate a break in the reasoning. He simply wrote - and Paul tended to write in a systematic, logical way. So, it's not misrepresenting anything to say that Paul wrote:

"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Everyone must submit themselves to the governing authorities..."

Reading it this way, it seems that Romans 13 is written to justify why Christians shouldn't be violent revolutionaries against a government that does evil. Though the government may be doing evil, its fundamental purpose is good.

The question Paul is answering isn't "Should we have a government?" but is "Should we revolt against the (evil?) government that already exists (through refusing to pay taxes, for example)?" His answer to the second question is "No", but it's not clear to me that he answers the first question at all - at least in this passage.

Also, this view is perfectly reconcilable with "taxes are theft", if we throw in other Scriptures. Just because something is theft doesn't mean that Christians should resist it. ("If someone takes from you...")

Obviously, this doesn't touch Augustine, Aquinas, or Hobbes. But, it does suggest, as Norman says, that Romans 13 isn't good enough if we want to justify the State.

Also, One problem i have with my own side (Free Market Anarchists) is that often we say "the state did this" or "the state wants you to do X" when in reality there is no thinking entity known as "the state." it is a nexus of people, human beings who perform various actions (some just and some unjust). I know we use the term for brevity's sake, but it is important to make the distinction. An example would be the feudal system. Sure we can generalize and say "feudal societies oppressed the peasants and the feudal lords were unjust in their taxation." But there is the chance that some of the feudal societies were genuinely anarcho-capitalistic, meaning they were property owners who allowed peasants to use their land in exchange for some rents (taxes/crops, etc). It would be wrong for us to say "feudal societies are unjust" because it is a simply a category of political institutions. It is possible that any feudal society, parish, commune, state, government, oligarchy, democracy, etc. can be both unjust and just, it simply depends on weather property is exploited or not. the name of the category, be it state, nation, government, is arbitrary. All we really mean by "the state is evil" is that "stealing is evil, and many people steal through a nexus of powerful political institutions (often abridged "the state")

"C) Taxes aren't rents. (I don't know of a single political philosopher of any significance who would not choose C).) "

The opinions of the political philosophers you know has no bearing on weather my two options were sufficient or not. Just because a category of people would choose C does not mean that C is correct or even possible. I am curious how C is even possible (perhaps we are using separate definitions for rents)

let me clarify my point:

When i say that taxation is either rent or theft, I am saying that it is either a voluntary payment for the use of someone else's stuff, or it is an involuntary extraction of property from tax payer to tax receiver. I am certain there are people in the world who voluntarily pay their taxes (people like my parents) much like they would pay for netflix. I put them in the A category. In other words, either you are subscribing to a service that the government/company/firm provides, or you are being coerced into paying for goods or services they provide (regardless of whether you use them). Im my example of the farmer who lives self sufficiently on his land, I do not see how you can say that taxation is not theft if the government A) recognizes the farmer as the owner of the property, and B) takes his property against his will. I could completely understand (though disagree) with your view if you claim that the state owns all the property, because at least then there is a logical consistency with the act of taxing.

I do not see the logic that C is possible, because if taxation is not a rent/subscription to the states property, then what else can it be other than theft?

Thanks for the response. I enjoyed "Economics for Real People" immensely, as my first systematic introduction to Austrianism, and I have given away many copies to friends.

The State claims ultimate ownership of me because it tells me what I may ingest on my own property, when it claims the right to conscript me, or claims income taxes or social security taxes, or that I plan for my future in a way to its pleasing. It claims to be able to tell me what I may or may not do with any piece of "my" property, to include forbidding the removal of trash, filling bogs, building structures.

Maybe I don't understand what your pre-existing disagreement with the "all taxation is theft" reasoning. Transactions are either of the form, "you give me something and I'll do something for you you'll like", or "you give me something or I'll do something TO you you won't like". Taxation falls into the latter category.

Michael, suppose that you're walking along one day and a guy comes and wacks you over the head with a club. When you get out of the hospital you bring an action against him for battery. You get awarded damages, and when you go to collect the damages (with the local sheriff) the guy shows up and says "Hey, man, you're taking my property from me involuntarily. Coercion! Theft! THEFT!"

Okay, so obviously the guy is an idiot. But he's not wrong that you're taking his property involuntarily, or that you are doing so via coercion. He's just wrong in thinking that makes what he's doing theft.

"The USSR kind of claimed to be "the primary owner of everything." I'm not aware of any Western state that makes any such claim, however."

They don't make the claim explicitly, naturally. But they exercise the prerogatives of ownership while preventing me from doing so if my desires for my property contradict theirs. They assert a superior claim to ownership of "my" property by taking it away or jailing or killing me if I persist in treating something as if it were mine. The fact that they don't do this all the time doesn't negate the fact that the claim is there and my actions and plans are always affected/chilled by this knowledge.

What is the exercise of eminent domain but a claim of higher ownership right?

Black Adder,Under our current system in the U.S., yes I would necessarily be stealing from tax payers to use the public court system. But as Murphy, and Rothbard have shown to great effect, is that it is possible in a society to enter contractual arrangements with arbitration agencies and insurance companies reguarding the laws and punishment you willingly sign up for. I personally would sign up for a set of laws that protected me from others, even if part of the condition is that i must pay restitution to anyone that i likewise hurt. My guess is, in a "free society" the man who robbed me would have his stuff taken from him and given to me as restitution (as you show), but it isn't coercive IF he previously agreed to obey X, Y, and Z rules set forth by his insurance company. If he is uninsured or something, i and the rest of my community can banish him for the crime he committed. the cost of being banished (or "deported" in modern tongue) might be higher than the benefits of not paying me, so he might just give me the dues the court says he owes so he can access other people's property in the future.

I recommend reading Murphy's "Chaos Theory" for other "what if's" you might have.

Jazzbumps -- I don't remember ever joining, and if I did I no longer want to be a member. Can I stop paying dues now? Please? I don't want "social security." I don't want to be protected from terrorists. I don't want to be told I can't work at whatever wage I agree to. I don't want to be told I am unable to determine what products to ingest for the maintenance of my own health. I don't want someone else to contract with doctors on my behalf. I don't want to be forced to use pieces of paper in trade which the "leaders" of the club devalue at will. None of this sounds like a good deal for me. It all sounds like a very bad deal for me, but a great deal for the "leaders" and fantastic promises for the gullible and ignorant.

My guess is, in a "free society" the man who robbed me would have his stuff taken from him and given to me as restitution (as you show), but it isn't coercive IF he previously agreed to obey X, Y, and Z rules set forth by his insurance company. If he is uninsured or something, i and the rest of my community can banish him for the crime he committed.

People could decide to banish unless he agrees to pay. Or they could just as easily do nothing. Heck, they could even decide to banish you for making a fuss about it. Then what?

I've read Chaos Theory, btw. David Friedman raises some objections in his Machinery of Freedom to similar insurance based views which seem to me to be decisive.

Many Western states do claim to be the primary owner of all land, at least.

I don't think any Western state claims to be the primary owner of of all the land in its territory. What they do claim is that certain pieces of land are its territory, and are thus subject to its laws, etc. I suppose one could construe that as a kind of residual ownership. If that's so, then the claim a state has on the land in its territory is as good as the claim any of its residents have (indeed, the residents typically only have an ownership claim on a piece of land because it is part of a given state's territory).

No, first of all, I would say "is," not "are." But no, of course not; not every time something is taken from you without your consent is stealing or theft -- see BlackAdder's example for an obvious case where it is not.

GREAT thread, thanks all, thanks Dr. Murphy, and thanks Jim O' Connor for the distinction between government and state. I've got a bujillion projects right now, so I'll just put forth some initial thoughts: Ever look at what Jesus said at that coin in the fish mouth episode? Matthew 17: 25-27. They treat us like strangers. One of the richest things I've done is to make up my own bible study. I might call it the prospector's bible study. I make a list of things I'm interested in, and things I'd like to see what the bible says regarding that topic. For instance, law/mercy, cause/effect, politics, and so on. I keep the list at about ten things. I look the list over first, then with pen and notepad, I read the bible, taking notes on what I find. I get so much more this way. I did that through the bible once, now I'm on my second pass. This time, the categories are different, includes read between the lines. Maybe I'm too influenced by Libertarians (easy these days) but I had this idea... It's interesting how the bible doesn't make a huge deal about the most significant events (sometimes). Garden of Eden for instance. MAJOR disaster for mankind, but just a chronological narrative, not a lot of adjectives: awful, terrible, dismal. And so it is, in the above mentioned passage about man choosing monarchy over theocracy, not a lot of adjectives, but was this one of man's huge turning points?? Just my speculation. I think being farther down the road in one's Christian pilgrimage is a position of wisdom and discernment. It's left up to us to work between law and mercy. Could this also be true for how much government is enough? I don't necessarily advocate overthrow, this civil situation is effect, a price to be paid. "My people perish for lack of Knowledge". Here's another awesome bible verse: "Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." Isaiah 28:15 I mean just from an economic perspective:"we have made lies our refuge" Wow.

I think all you've shown is that "taxation is theft" type arguments rely on certain assumptions about who has a claim to what. Fair point, but the underlying assumptions have been articulated and defended many times. The "taxes are not theft" arguments rely on their own assumptions which have been articulated, but which carry odd implications that would be hard to defend without blushing.

If the argument is that governments are entitled to impose their demands just on account of the fact that they are governments, then we need a way of determining whether or not an organization is a government in order to be sure that we are applying the principle. So far as I can tell no one has articulated a way of distinguishing a government from a gang but the common-sense standard seems to be that an organization can call itself a government if it is able to maintain a monopoly on violence in some area.

Connect the pieces an you get the implication that a group of people is entitled to make all sorts of demands upon others just as long as that group is able to make plenty of violence. No one actually believes that. Even the people in the government don't believe this. That is, even the tax collectors won't admit that if some other group were to overpower the current government, then they would be morally obligated to submit to their conquerors and pay tribute to them.

I'm sure statist philosophers have been confident in their positions. I doubt that they thought through the implications of their views. I sketch the problem above. If they did, they should blush. But if they didn't that's their problem.

I've never encountered any statist literature that proposed some method of solving the empirical problem of determining whether a group of people demanding my submission is a gang to whom I owe nothing or a state to whom I owe my submission. That you chose to guess dismissively at my reading habits rather than cite an example gives me little reason to think otherwise.

But even if some statist has bothered to explain how I might be sure that the organization I am submitting to is a state, whatever they propose will have some implication which more or less resembles "If Gene's group decisively beats up Barrack's group (or whatever the criteria for statehood is asserted to be), then from that date forward Barrack is morally obligated to obey Gene and to pay him taxes." I wonder if anyone would admit to actually believing this.

"I've never encountered any statist literature that proposed some method of solving the empirical problem of determining whether a group of people demanding my submission is a gang to whom I owe nothing or a state to whom I owe my submission."

"Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."1 Peter 2:13-25

Comment: In context, it could certainly be argued that that the Apostle sees state officials as a mixed bag. Some civil authorities are good and gentle, and some are unjust. It does violence to the text to try and argue that the institution of the state is *necessarily* evil. As usual, I side with Augustine and Aquinas on this, and Callahan too. Quite contrary to the typical anarchist assertion that the state is de facto evil, the scripture clearly teaches that the general institution of the state and its authorities (not the individual sinful acts of its leaders) are actually sanctioned by God. The Bible is not a science textbook however, and although the basic theological principle is given, this should not discourage the in-depth study of the scale and scope of government which is most efficient and conducive to a civil society. This might even be viewed as a study of natural theology.

In the final analysis however, neither Paul’s assertion in Romans 13, nor that given by Peter (highlighted above) is a study in government or economics, but rather an admonition to live a life which is pleasing and honoring to God in the context of whatever type of government the Christian lives under. Stripping these passages away from their central message to abstract other positions is risky hermeneutics.

As another thought, the point Clausen made about the more scholarly theology from the Reformed branch of evangelicalism caught my ear. In my own experience, I have also found Reformed scholars to be much more inclined to the notion of Austrian economics than dispensationalists. This is surprising to some, especially in light of the strong Reformed views on theological determinism and free will, as opposed to the more theologically libertarian dispensational camp. That is why I was not surprised to hear that Clausen comes from the Reformed wing, while I continue to be surprised that Murphy does not (yet).

Another thought that was not stressed in the talk concerns the various branches of thought within Austrian economics itself. Whether one considers himself more in agreement with the fundamental arguments of Hayek or Rothbard, plays large in ones views of limited government vs anarchy. Hayek and Rothbard derive their Austrianism from very different means, despite ending up with many complimentary views. Evangelicals of all stripes generally have suspicions of the foundations of Rothbardian anarchy, with those suspicions being well-founded (IMHO) from the texts of scripture, and also from the historical giant theologians of the church. Hayek, on the other hand, approaches not so much the morality of the state as an institution, but more specifically socialism, and the barrier that the knowledge problem creates in command economies. Christians (not only evangelicals, but Roman Catholics as well) may see such a Hayekian epistemology problem as an admission of humility (a theme stressed throughout scripture), and therefore may be more persuaded by Hayek's arguments, rather than Rothbard's arguments from his derivation of a secular humanist morality.